Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description states that mark_read:true flags events as read, which modifies the feed state. This contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=true, which implies no state mutation. The description does disclose this behavior, but the contradiction to annotations is a serious inconsistency that undermines trust.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph of five sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise and each sentence adds value (purpose, return fields, filtering options, mark_read effect, alternative endpoint). Minor room for improvement in structuring with bullet points.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential return fields, filtering, mark_read state change, and provides an alternative access method. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively, though it could briefly mention pagination or limit behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds usage context (e.g., 'e.g. "sec_8k"' for type) but does not introduce new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description merely reinforces existing schema information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed,' clearly stating the verb (pull) and resource (fired events). It further enumerates return fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'recent_changes' or 'validate_claim', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on filtering by type and since, and on using mark_read to control read state for subsequent calls. It also mentions that polling works and provides an alternative endpoint for scripts/dashboards. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for different use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.